What CMx2 Module would you like to see

[juan_gigante]

Sergei, you make a good point. No other conflict that they could portray would have the epic grandeur of WWII as well as, as you say, a deep and rich backstory. But I think that the abilty to create one's own backstory would be pretty handy. Think about how much easier things would be for the people in charge of a CMMC-type thing. Heck, for tourneys you could make up a whole setting for the tourney to be placed in. But still, the lack of background (and the fact that it would be silly for BFC to too much up for us) as I see it is the only problem with near-future.

And with regards to the possibility of a lack of realism due to incomplete tests, I would argue that tests are unnecessary. If, let us assume, BFC had all the data on two tanks, including weapon and armor data, I don't think it would be very hard at all to extrapolate, based on that data, what would happen when a shell from one hits the other. I would buy the results dilivered by BFC, assuming they aren't just making up data about the combatants, becuase I trust their gunnery model to realistically represent the effects of x's gunfire on y's armor. The handy thing about SLoD is they could make EVERYTHING up, all the data on everything, so much less research would be involved. But I feel that that is sort of a cop out.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

And with regards to the possibility of a lack of realism due to incomplete tests, I would argue that tests are unnecessary. If, let us assume, BFC had all the data on two tanks, including weapon and armor data, I don't think it would be very hard at all to extrapolate, based on that data, what would happen when a shell from one hits the other.

But without tests, you don't have any common data to extrapolate on. Also keep in mind that modern armour, AT grenades, targetting systems etc. are far more sophisticated and nuanced than they were in WW2. CMBO didn't model differences in optics because BTS said they couldn't find documents which would have made it possible to simulate their effects. With a design philosophy that pedantic, I don't see how modern war could happen unless lots of the goodies were left out.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I still favour a Arnhem module. It got the Americans and the Brits which is good for marketing, especially the 101st which seems mandatory for the more average gamer. But with no American armour the module is still small enough while still letting you players loose on the much cooler Brit and German AFVs. and the Arnhem name is good marketing, a rich enviroment which even the most casual gamer would reckognize. About as much cool marketing ability as can be fit in the new, smaller module concept. I'd be surprised if we won't see this one in the top 5. But then again BFC do keep on amazing me.

But 50s Korea would be good too, but with oodles of UN participants perhaps too broad for the module concept. And their is not quite the wide marketing appeal for Korea, sadly.

[juan_gigante]

But in CMBB and CMAK they did, even if only for the Germans. Furthermore, I would argue that much more information is available (even if, admittedly, not to the general public) about armored vehicles nowadays than those 60 years ago. I'm sure that BFC could uncover a wealth of information involving gunnery tests, etc. regarding modern AFVs. And simply because modern equipment is more complicated, the game can still handle, for two reasons. One: you mentioned AT grenades, and I would like to use this as an example. Now, I won't deny that a modern anti-tank device is more complicated than a gammon bomb. But is the function really so different? After all, to the player, the unit just activates the thing and chucks it at (or plants it on) the unlucky vehicle. We don't see them setting the timer on the explosive or turn it so the charge faces in or whatever. That's up to the computer to handle, and I think it's a reasonable assumption that with regular or above troops, they will do all that minor stuff correctly every time. And for when they don't, there can be a chance that the device explodes early, or doesn't do much damage or whatever. BFC doesn't actually have to model the setting of the timer in the grenade. That is only one example, but I think the idea carries onto other things. Secondly, this is CMX2! It's supposed to be mega-complex! One of the basic tenets (as I see it) of CMX2 is that it will handle accurately and easily a bunch of complex stuff. When I buy CMX2, it won't be for the pretty face and the setting; it'll be for the brain underneath, a brain that will be able to do all that we ask of it and more, a brain that should be able to model complex sighting, targeting, etc., etc. That's the whole point.

[hellfish]

Maybe the Korean War just needs it's version of Saving Private Ryan? A piece of media which tells a heroic, epic, if inflated, story?

Vietnam had "Platoon" and "Apocalypse Now". Somalia had "Blackhawk Down".

Someone needs to make a movie about the 187th Airborne RCT's drop or about Hackworth's Wolfpack in Korea. That'd get the 1337 kiddies to spend their allowance on a Korean War game.

Come to think of it, a movie based on Hackworth's military career might be really cool...

[MikeyD]

Let's remember, though CMx2 versions should come quicker than CMx1 versions did they'll still take some time to get out. If we demand a Bocage module followed by a Paris liberation module, followed by a Bulge module, followed by a Ruhr pocket module those four modules might take up 1/12-2 years+ of BFC's life! How about a Bocage module, Napoleonics module, caveman module, spaceman module, and (if the engine is infinitely expandable) age of sail warfare module! It sounds like WWII ETO module-WWII ETO module-WWII ETO module would be putting all its eggs in one wargame subgenre basket while the clock ticks on the game engine's useful life.

[hellfish]

I think BFC mentioned the possibility of "subcontracting" modules, so they wouldn't necessarily be working on everything by themselves.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

My real favourite in the 'out there' category would be an X-COM module. It would only require everyone at BFC to hand in their Ferraris to buy the license. Who holds it now, IIRC it was Firaxis but the whole demise of the X-COM license was so messy I'm not sure.

Imagine that, X-COM with CMx2 type gameplay. If they added the Geosphere strategy part they'd have a game that would never be out of the Top 10 greatest games of all time lists. Admittedly, the originals never left that spot.

*sigh*

What a nice dream to have.

[juan_gigante]

Well, something to keep in mind is that there are modules and there are the games the modules work with. So there would be a separate game for each WWII, Korea, Napolean, SLoD. BFC has estimated that each game will take about 2 - 3 years. I assume that with future games they might well make tweaks and improvements to the engine. But the modules are like expansion packs to each game, and should hopefully be cranked out 1 a year or better. So you might have a WWII ETO game that starts out Normandy. Then a Bulge module. Then a Ruhr module AND an American Civil War game that starts out Bull Run to Gettysburg. Then a Barbarossa module and a ACW Wilderness campaign mod. And so on. How sustainable this will be, I don't know, but to judge from various bones, BFC hopes to use it to crank out as much quality stuff as they possibly can be concentrating on bits and pieces rather than huge, old CM game-sized bites. In fact, I even heard mention of the possiblity of release of a module wherein, if a bunch of grogs got together and did quality research on a subject for which a game already existed and submitted it to BFC, BFC might release it as a module. I don't know about that, though. THe best way to think of it, as I see, is as a tree. The trunk is the CMX2 engine, from which shoot off big branches (games), from which come little branches (modules). As time goes by, the trunk grows higher. More branches. Eventually, lots of subjects will get branches.

[juan_gigante]

I wish BFC would at least give us the top five list of the first game they would do. Then we could only argue about those five instead of the seemingly infinite possibilities. Also, it would give grogs a chance to start reading up on probable subjects, so they wouldn't have any down time of not-knowing.

[Spanish Bombs]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Maybe the Korean War just needs it's version of Saving Private Ryan? A piece of media which tells a heroic, epic, if inflated, story?

Try the movie Tae Guk Gi. It has subtitles, but otherwise should fit everything you might be looking for.

[juan_gigante]

I haven't seen that, but I heard that it was pretty good. I should check it out.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Problem is, it has subtitles hence no mass market impact, so to the wider public Korea remains the forgotten war unless the module is called C*M*A*S*H

*capslock is not your friend*

[ July 19, 2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[juan_gigante]

No, not Korea in the 1950s. A fictional conflict with North Korea in 2006. I would buy C*M*A*SH, though.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Maybe the Korean War just needs it's version of Saving Private Ryan? A piece of media which tells a heroic, epic, if inflated, story?

Try the movie Tae Guk Gi. It has subtitles, but otherwise should fit everything you might be looking for. </font>

[juan_gigante]

If it were 1950's Korea, The Manchurian Candidate (not the new one) rocked my world. Not quite a heroic battle epic, but lots of suspense, excitement, tension, and sweaty upper lips. While most was set in New York, it did have several scenes in the Korean War. And if any soldier actually did what Lawerence Harvey got his commendation for, there wouldn't be any question about the Medal of Honor.

[Dennis50]

I haven't been to the movies in 20 years or more ..and I'm American. Bollywood sucks as far as I'm concerned. Nothing there to see ..move along.

Regards,

Gunz

[juan_gigante]

Well, there's some of the stuff being put out now, but to label all of American cinema for the past twenty years as "nothing to see"? That's perhaps a little harsh. Surely you at least rent a video now and again. If not, I'm sure that this forum could recommend some actual quality movies, both war and not, for you to catch up on.

[juan_gigante]

By the way, they could cash in on the lateest biopic craze and make a movie biography of Douglas MacArthur. He was quite a guy, and I think a quality movie could be made. It could even be an adaption of "American Caesar" by William Manchester, which is the second best biography of anyone I've ever read and which everyone should read. It gives you a whole new pespective on the guy. Anyways, such a movie could have some pretty good Korea scenes. Can't you just see the landing at Inchon...

[Dennis50]

oh sure I watch some movies for entertainment ..old westerns and such, a few war type, and thrillers like "The postman rings twice" .."Body Double" ..you know ...entertainment type stuff.

Regards,

Gunz

[MikeyD]

I wonder if the CMx2 would be expandable (contractable?) to do a 1:1 playable 'Postman always Rings Twice' title. Direct your little guy to walk over and club the restauant owner over the head. In the next turn direct him and the cheating wife to dump the body into the trunk of the sedan. Sorta like a tactical 'the Sims' for the murderously inclined!

All we have is fantasies about the engine. We just don't know how it'll work down to 1:1 playable, or what commands you'll be able to give the figures, or ...much of anything about the game!

[juan_gigante]

At last notice it was 1:1 representation but not 1:1 control.

[MikeyD]

I think Moon said the engine would be expandable and contractable - admittedly with a lot of work on their part. I guess that might imply marching an entire 'square' of Napoleonic infantry around the field, to sneaking individual space lobsters into a space station.

..but hey, what do I know about it?

[juan_gigante]

I guess they could just have an individual lobster be the equivalent of a team in CM now; it would either just mean fewer units or less guys you get to control. Really, all one would have to do, even in CM now, for one-to-one control, is have it set so every man gets his own unit, with base, orders, etc. This would either mean you control very few men, or a whole lotta extra micromanagement. For a Napoleonic square, you just have units of 100 men instead of 12. It's just a pain in the butt now, and the question is how will they streamline it. I actually like 1:1 representation but not control. Ordering a squad to advance and seeing all the guys get up, not all at the same time, and moving along, firing and moving by bounds. One gets popped by a hidden machine gun. Most of the others hit the dirt, but one guy makes a run for it. He takes one in the leg and goes down. Two guys crawl out and drag him back to the copse of trees the squad has taken cover in. Some guys are lying on the ground, two are crouched behind a log, popping up every so often to try and return fire, a few guys are behind trees. Little puffs of dust are exploding all around them, bits of wood and bark fly off as the machine gun rakes a tree. A fire from the MG slows down. The Sergeant stands up, waves and yells for his men to go. A few get up and dash ahead, holding on their helmets with one hand. One guy stays behind to take care of the wounded while the rest head out in a fast crouch, looking around nervously. They reach the woods they were headed for and assume a defensive formation. Some watch into the forest, while some fire on the now suppressed MG. One movement order completed. That is what I want CMX2 to be like.

[M1A1TC]

Well, if BFC needs any info on 2nd ID or Korea,I could help. I have detailed pics of both the US Army equipment, ROK army, and local enviroment.